快猫短视频

: A brief tour of everything we know

Paul Bloom

Bodley Head

Inspired by The Origin of the Universe,听John Barrow鈥檚 1994 survey of what was then known about cosmology, psychologist Paul Bloom has set about writing an introductory tome of his own: a brief yet comprehensive guide to the human mind.

Emulating Barrow鈥檚 superb survey has been hard because, as Bloom cheekily points out, 鈥渢he mysteries of space and time turn out to be easier for our minds to grasp than those of consciousness and choice鈥�.

Nevertheless, Bloom succeeds, covering everything from perception and behaviour to language and development 鈥� there is even a small but very worthwhile foray into abnormal psychology. The Human Mind: A brief tour of everything we know is an account that is positive, but never self-serving.

Problems in reproducing some key studies, the field鈥檚 sometimes scandalous manipulation of statistics, and the once-prevailing assumption that undergraduate volunteers could accurately represent the diversity of the entire human species, are serious problems, dealt with seriously.

One project Bloom cites in the context of replicability looked at 100 psychology studies published in top journals and found that only about 40 per cent of the replications got significant results.

As for the downright disreputable, Bloom writes: 鈥淢ost of the crisis is caused by shoddy research practices, but a notable exception was the work of the psychologist Diederik Stapel, who wrote several publications with fabricated data. When I read his autobiography, written after he was exposed, I was struck by how understandable his motivations were, even for us nonfrauds.鈥�

Of course, Bloom does more than simply set out the rather mixed contents of the stall. He also explores psychology鈥檚 evolving values. He recalls his early behaviourist training, in a climate hostile to (then woolly) questions about consciousness. 鈥淚f we were asked to defend our dismissal of consciousness,鈥� he recalls, 鈥渨e would point out that intelligence does not require sentience.鈥�

Intelligence is no longer the field鈥檚 only goal and consciousness is now front and centre in the science of the mind. This isn鈥檛 only an advance in the complexity of testing (assuming such testing even makes any sense as an idea as things stand), it is an ethical one. In 1789, Jeremy Bentham asked whether the law could ever refuse its protection to 鈥渁ny sensitive being鈥�, and pointed out that 鈥淭he question is not, Can [certain beings] reason, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?鈥�

Suffering requires consciousness, says Bloom, and understanding one enables us to tackle the other, so the shift in interest to consciousness itself is a welcome and humanising move.

This strong belief in the humanitarian potential of psychology allows Bloom to defend aspects of his discipline that often discomfort outside observers. He handles issues of environmental and genetic influences on the mind very well, and offers a welcome and robust defence of psychologist Alfred Binet鈥檚 1905 invention, the measure of聽general intelligence or 鈥渋ntelligence quotient鈥�.

Bloom shows that the IQ test is as solid a metric as anything in social science. We know that a full half of us score less than 100 on that test. Should this knowledge not fill us with humility and compassion? Actually our responses tend to be more ambiguous. Bloom points out that Nazi commentators hated the idea of IQ because they thought Jews would get higher scores than they would. He writes that the Nazis 鈥減referred the study and measurement of traits they believed Germans would fare better in, such as what they described as 鈥榩ractical intelligence鈥欌��.

He is keen to demonstrate that minds do more than think. The privileging of thinking over feeling, intuiting and suffering is a mistake. 鈥淎 lot depends on what is meant by 鈥榬ational鈥�,鈥� Bloom writes. If you are going outside when it is raining and you don鈥檛 want to get wet, it is rational to bring an umbrella. But rationality defined in this manner is separate from goodness. 鈥淜idnapping a rich person鈥檚 child might be a rational way to achieve the goal of getting a lot of money quickly,鈥� says Bloom, 鈥渟o long as you don鈥檛 have other goals, such as obeying the law and not being a horrible person.鈥�

Bloom鈥檚 ultimate purpose is to explain how a materialistic view of the mind is fully compatible with the existence of choice, morality and responsibility. This middle-of-the-road approach may disappoint intellectual storm chasers, but the rest of us can be assured of an up-to-the-minute snapshot of the field, full of unknowns and uncertainties, yes, and speculations, and controversies 鈥� but guided by an ever-more rounded idea of what it is to be human.